Re: [rtcweb] No Interim on SDES at this juncture

I just remember that somebody wrote a draft explaining why DTLS offers NO
more security than SDES. AFAIR the draft was just ignored. I'm also
surprised that there is no need to discuss this subject.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
El 14/06/2013 18:59, "Hadriel Kaplan" <hadriel.kaplan@oracle.com> escribió:

>
> On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:43 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
> magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> > However, this time we have proposed a time and requested people to
> > submit agenda items to that meeting. Don't hold us WG chairs responsible
> > because you in the WG aren't providing input into what should be
> discussed.
>
> You can't be serious.
> There was exactly ONE email asking for agenda items, here:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07668.html
> It was sent on May 30th.  It gave a generous 6 days to respond.  Luckily
> no one ever goes on vacation for longer than 5 days.
> Instead, two people sent a response on June 10th, a tremendous 11 days
> after the request.  Outrageous!  That's a almost twice as long as they were
> given!
>
> Thank goodness the chairs detected this monstrous breach of procedure, and
> thwarted the attempts of anarchy!  I mean if people are allowed to respond
> to emails so tardily, how can we be expected to get things accomplished as
> quickly as they've so far been in this WG?!?
>
> Sure, an interim for this topic has been waiting for many months if not a
> whole year, and now that people didn't respond in 6 days but took instead
> 11 days the topic will be delayed indefinitely yet again... but that's no
> excuse for blatantly flaunting the rules!
>
> Personally I saw the email on May 30th, and assumed Oscar and Dan would
> respond to you for agenda time.  I assumed that if no one had submitted
> agenda items to you, that the WG Chairs would send out an email warning
> about that, or perhaps even directly email the people who they expected to
> submit agenda items.
>
>
> > If you want to discuss this, write a draft describing how how your
> > additional keying is to be integrated, what the pro and cons of it. That
> > will enable direct discussion of a proposal. The WG clearly are
> > opinionated on this matter, but apparently don't have energy to produce
> > proposals.
>
> There *are* drafts.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-rtcweb-sdes-problems-00
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohlsson-rtcweb-sdes-support-01
> There are even powerpoint slides, sent to the chairs the last time this
> meeting almost happened but didn't.
>
> I think the problem must be that those things weren't signed in
> triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public
> enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and
> recycled as firelighters.
>
> -hadriel
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>